Post navigation

How the West Lost the Cold War

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

The girlfriend of a politician from the Sweden Democrats, a small party critical of mass immigration, was recently attacked at her home outside Stockholm. The young woman was found bound with duct tape in the apartment block where she lives with Martin Kinnunen, chairman of the youth wing of the SD. Three men had forced their way into the couple’s apartment and held the 19-year-old at knife point. Kinnunen tells of several threats and anonymous phone calls to the family. He blames the media for systematically portraying the SD as monsters and thus for legitimizing aggression against them, and claims that the Swedish democracy is a sham.

Antifascistisk Aktion, a group that supposedly fights against “racists,” openly brag about numerous physical attacks against persons with their full name and address published on their website. Only a week after this group harassed a Swedish judge and vandalized his house, members demonstrated alongside the Swedish police, the Swedish government and the Swedish media establishment during Pride Week, Stockholm’s annual gay celebration, in August 2007. At the very end of the Pride Parade marched a group of black-clothed and masked representatives of AFA. Adjacent to them marched a number of policemen, including members of the Swedish Gay Police organization.

At their website, AFA claim to have beaten several homophobes during the event, at least one of whom ended up in a hospital. They are Socialists, and as Socialists they are convinced that progress can only be made through struggle, and it is implicit that they mean violent struggle: “If we want to fight against capitalism, the working class needs to be united, and in order to be so intolerance cannot be tolerated. However, if we want to fight against intolerance we have to defeat capitalism as an extension of that struggle. Hence anti-fascism, feminism and the struggle against homophobia go hand in hand with the class struggle!”

According to Politikerbloggen, AFA have produced a manual about how to use violence in order to paralyze and hurt their opponents, and they encourage their members to study it closely. Meanwhile, senior members of law enforcement are too busy waving plastic penises to care. It’s all for tolerance, and then there is this small group at the back, behind the police, the media and the cultural and political establishment, ready to assault, beat up and hospitalize anybody deemed to be insufficiently tolerant.Several of the Centre Party’s offices were vandalized before the elections in 2006 in protest against a proposal for new labor agreements. This was done by a coalition of left-wing extremists calling themselves the Invisible Party. AFA participated, as they proudly proclaim on their website. The centre-right coalition government which gained power that year consists of four parties including the Centre Party. A year later, representatives from this government walked alongside the same group which had attacked their offices a few months earlier.

Broderskapsrörelsen (“The Brotherhood”), an organization of Christian members of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, has decided to establish a network for people of other faiths, which largely seems to mean Muslims. Its leader Peter Weiderud says that “I’m incredibly happy that a unanimous congress now leaves the door open for Muslims and others to work together with us in the Brotherhood; this is going to enrich us all and help the [Social Democratic] Party to better influence the Swedish society.” For Abdulkader Habib, active within the Muslim Brotherhood, the decision is a historic step which shows that the dividing lines in society do not go between religions, but within religions: “Faith and politics are intertwined for many Muslims, which is why the decision to create this network is a key to the crucial work for integration that we need to do.” “We shouldn’t disregard the importance of people’s [religious] faith,” says deputy leader Cecilia Dalman-Eek. “At the same time, this is both instructive and inspiring for us Christians within the Brotherhood. This is about an exciting growth of new mass movements and is a part of the new Sweden.”– – – – – – – – –The Social Democrat Ola Johansson, a member of the Brotherhood, has referred to the book Social Justice in Islam by Sayyid Qutb, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood member who has become the spiritual guide for Islamic Jihad terrorists worldwide, as a proof that Muslims support the welfare state and can thus make common cause with the Socialists.

According to writer Nima Sanandaji, the Social Democrats have started fishing for votes with the help of radical Muslims clergies such as the influential leader Mahmoud Aldebe. In 1999, Aldebe proposed that sharia, Islamic law, be introduced in Sweden. In 2003 he involved himself in a heated debate regarding an incident of honor killing where a Kurdish girl was murdered by her two uncles. Aldebe forcefully defended the perpetrators and viewed the debate regarding honor-related murders as an attack against the Islamic religion.

In 2006, the Muslim Association of Sweden demanded in a letter, signed by its leader Mahmoud Aldebe, separate family laws regulating marriage and divorce, public schools with imams teaching homogeneous classes of Muslims children their religion and the language of their original homeland, and a “mosque in every municipality to be built through interest-free loans made available by the local municipalities.” This to demonstrate “Islam’s right to exist in Sweden” and to “heighten the status of and respect towards Muslims.” The demands were rejected by the Social Democrats then, but it now appears as if they have recognized that they need to cooperate with the fast-growing Muslim community if they want to regain power, so we shouldn’t be surprised to see calls for the use of sharia law in family matters by an otherwise officially feminist party.

The Social Democrats narrowly lost the elections in 2006, and appear to have decided that the way to regain and maintain power is to import voters, a strategy adopted by many of their sister parties in Western Europe. The Muslim Association of Sweden is generally viewed as ideologically inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The current leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, thinks that “the Sweden Democrats are a right-wing party. It is a misogynistic and xenophobic party.” The “party is a threat to a Sweden that I believe many of us love — an open, unprejudiced and tolerant Sweden.”

Whatever else one thinks about that party, I’m not so sure the Muslim Brotherhood are less “misogynistic.” According to journalist Kurt Lundgren, Sahlin, expected to become the next Prime Minister, was a participant in the Pride Festival where she was graduated, after several questions, to the F***ing Medal Award. Has she given some thought to what effect this will have in a country with exploding rape statistics? According to the blogger Dick Erixon, the number of reported rapes in Sweden is now three times as high as in New York. NY has roughly the same number of inhabitants, but it is a metropolis, whereas Sweden is a country with mostly rural areas and villages. Swedish girls are called “infidel whores” on a regular basis and are increasingly scared to go outside, yet the nation’s arguably most powerful woman takes the F***ing Medal Award. How will that be perceived by Muslim immigrants?

Moreover, how will her views on sexual liberation be reconciled with her party’s cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood, since several of its senior international leaders have indicated that gays should be killed? The Swedish Church has recently announced that it will allow gay couples to marry in church. Will Sahlin and the Social Democrats also make sure that gay couples should be allowed to marry in mosques controlled by the MB? More interestingly, will AFA attack them for homophobia if they refuse?

Marcos Cantera Carlomagno in 1995 published a PhD thesis at Lund University describing a series of letters sent by Per Albin Hansson, leader of the Social Democrats and Prime Minister between 1932 and 1946, who worked for the establishment of “Folkhemmet,” the People’s Home, as the Swedish welfare state model became known as. Hansson was a dear pen pal with Italy’s Fascist leader Mussolini and praised the corporate, Fascist system where the entire economy and each individual were intimately tied to and subordinate to the state. Hansson was positively disposed to Fascism and saw his welfare state as a related concept. After mentioning his work in a local newspaper, Carlomagno was called by his supervisor who stated in anger that his scholarship would be cut off. Carlomagno’s work was totally ignored by the entire media and political establishment in Sweden when it appeared in the 1990s.

Why did this information meet with such repression? Because the power of the political and cultural establishment is not based on reasoned discussion but on shaming opponents and branding them as evil with words loaded with emotions and taboo. Terms such as “racist”, “Fascist”, and “Nazi” automatically shut down any rational discussion of a subject. The irony is that a similar strategy was employed with great success by…..the Nazis.

Adolf Hitler described how to use “spiritual terror” to intimidate and silence opponents, a technique he learned from watching the Socialists and the Social Democrats. He understood “the infamous spiritual terror which this movement exerts, particularly on the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor mentally equal to such attacks; at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked persons break down and, just to have peace again, they sacrifice the hated individual… Conversely, they praise every weakling on the opposing side, sometimes cautiously, sometimes loudly, depending on the real or supposed quality of his intelligence.”

In 2006, the newspaper Dagens Nyheter reported that following recommendations from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, priests in the Swedish Church applied German race laws from 1937 onwards. According to Lund University’s Professor Anders Jarlert, who led the research, any Swede who wanted to marry an Aryan German was forced to sign an affirmation stating that none of the German’s grandparents were Jewish. History Professor Stig Ekman told DN that Sweden’s culture of silence and secrecy is one reason why this is appearing only now, generations later. In 1937, the Swedish government was controlled by the Social Democrats, yet despite this evidence that they applied Nazi race laws, party members still get away with denouncing critics of their immigration policies as neo-Nazis, racists or Fascists.

In the book The New Totalitarians, the British historian Roland Huntford in the early 1970s pointed out that Socialist professor Gunnar Myrdal and his wife Alva, both highly influential ideologists in developing the Swedish welfare state, had intimate connections with the German academic world during the Nazi age. Gunnar Myrdal served as both a member of parliament and later as a government minister for the Social Democrats during this period. According to Huntford: “The professor was then a Nazi sympathizer, publicly describing Nazism as the movement of youth and the movement of the future. In Myrdal’s defence, it must be pointed out that, whatever his other propensities, Hitler did have advanced ideas on social welfare, and that the social ideology of the German Nazis and the Swedish Social Democrats had much in common. Until the mid 1930s, Nazism had considerable attractions for those who favoured a benevolent and authoritarian state.”

Gunnar and Alva Myrdal promoted the idea of positive eugenics and forced sterilization programs against those with “weak genes.” This started in Sweden even before Nazi Germany, and it continued longer.

The Nazis called themselves national Socialists, and they took the Socialist component of their ideology quite seriously. They never nationalized all assets of production as the Communists did. They left nominal ownership in private hands, but production was in reality controlled by the state. The Nazis were thus to the left, economically, compared to many of the labor parties in Western Europe today. As Adolf Hitler stated in 1927: “We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!”

The Muslim Brotherhood were also fans of the European Fascist and Nazi movements in the 1930s, as they are of welfare state Socialism now. In Origins of Fascism, historian Walter Laqueur notes similarities between Islam and Nazism: “A German Catholic émigré writer Edgar Alexander (Edgar Alexander Emmerich) published an interesting work in 1937 in Switzerland entitled The Hitler Mythos (which was translated into English and reprinted after World War Two) in which he compared National Socialism with ‘Mohammedanism’ (…) He referred frequently to Hitler’s ‘Mohammedanism’ but made it clear that this referred only to external organizational forms (whatever this meant), to mass psychological effects and militant fanaticism. Alexander believed that Mohammed’s religion was based on sincere religious fanaticism (combined with political impulses) whereas Hitler’s (political) religion and its fanaticism had different sources.”

In Laqueur’s view, Fascism was less monolithic than Communism, as there were significant differences in theory and practice from country to country. The French Marxist Orientalist Maxime Rodinson wrote a polemic against the influential philosopher and fellow left-winger Michel Foucault who welcomed the Islamic Revolution in Iran. According to Rodinson, Khomeini and Islamic groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood constituted a form of “archaic fascism.” Ibn Warraq has used an outline of the Fascist ideology made by Italian novelist Umberto Eco and found that most of its defining hallmarks are shared by Islam.

German sociologist Theodor Adorno was a member of the Frankfurt School and was influenced by Georg Lukács, one of Gramsci’s fellow cultural Marxists. The Authoritarian Personality, a book carrying Adorno’s name but in reality produced by the combined efforts of a number of people from the Frankfurt School, was extremely influential in the United States in the generation following WW2 and contributed to the Allied denazification program in Germany. Working at the University of Berkeley, California, during and after the war, Adorno and others such as the German-Jewish thinker Max Horkheimer through a large number of interviews tried to establish that what led to the rise of Nazi Germany was the predominance of a particular kind of authoritarian personality, which happened to be closely tied to conservative viewpoints. In their view, this was not just the case in Nazi Germany; there were large numbers of potential Fascists all over the Western world.

The authors developed the so-called F-scale (F for “Fascist”) to measure the psychological indicators of an authoritarian personality. They identified several key dimensions of a protofascist personality, which included favoring traditional morality, close family ties and strong support of religion. It also included aggression, stereotypes, a preoccupation with oppression, dominance and destruction and an obsession with sex. The solution to root out this authoritarian personality was above all to be found in the breakdown and transformation of the traditional family structure..

It is striking to notice that these writers were inspired by a Marxist worldview and consistently refused to see the heavy Socialist influences on the Nazi ideology. Adorno and others argued that “late capitalism” had developed tools to resist the rise of a Socialist society, above all the use of popular culture and education. They apparently concluded that what led to the rise of the Nazis were traditional and “conservative” viewpoints.

But the Nazis weren’t conservatives. They should more properly be understood as a revolutionary Socialist movement, albeit one with powerful racialist and anti-Semitic overtones. Judging from the death toll produced by Socialist regimes both prior to and after them, it is tempting to conclude that the destruction brought by the Nazis owed at least as much to the Socialist as to the nationalist element of their ideology. The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, published in 1951, a year after The Authoritarian Personality, was somewhat closer to understanding the commonalities between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

However, since the Nazis have by now been dubbed a “far-right” movement, anybody considered to be a “right-winger” or conservative is thus supposedly closer to them than Socialists are, which automatically makes them suspect. Much of the power of the political Left throughout the West is based on such guilt-by-association, which is why it would be a disaster for their power base if it were to be demonstrated that the Swedish Social Democrats, the darlings of the political Left internationally, were close to the Fascists and the Nazis. They now display great affection for Islam, another thing they have in common with the Nazis.

Many of the stories in the famous The Book of One Thousand and One Nights (Arabian Nights), though frequently based on much older Persian and Indian tales, are said to have taken place during the rule of the Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid in Baghdad in the late 8th and early 9th century. Few seem to remember that the first prototype of the yellow badge for Jews employed by the Nazis were developed by him, based on the regulations for dhimmis in Islamic teachings. He ordered Jews to wear yellow belts, Christians blue belts. This practice was later imported to Europe via medieval Spain and Portugal under Islamic rule.

Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Arab nationalist leader, a leading force behind the establishment of the Arab League and a spiritual father of the PLO, was a close collaborator with Nazi Germany and personally met with Adolf Hitler. In a radio broadcast from Berlin he called upon Muslims to kill Jews wherever they could find them. Dieter Wisliceny was the deputy of Adolf Eichmann, the organizer of the Holocaust and reportedly the inventor of the phrase the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question.” During the Nuremberg trials, Wisliceny stated that the Mufti “was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz.”

Serge Trifkovic in his book The Sword of the Prophet documents how al-Husayni recruited Bosnian and Albanian Muslims for Waffen SS units in the Balkans. Yugoslavia wanted to extradite al-Husayni for war crimes after WW2, but he fled to Egypt and continued his war against Jews. Orthodox Christian Serbs had to wear blue armbands, Jews yellow armbands. This clearly demonstrates that for Muslims this was a Jihad against disobedient dhimmis, and thus a continuation of the Turkish and Kurdish genocide against Armenians a few years earlier which was one of the inspirations for the Holocaust. More than a quarter of a million Serbs, Jews and Romani people (Gypsies) were killed by these Muslims troops. The leader of the Nazi SS troops Heinrich Himmler was impressed and stated to Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels that Islam was “a very practical and attractive religion for soldiers.”

He was far from the only person seeing a close correlation between Nazism and Islam. Karl Jung, in The Symbolic Life from 1939, stated that: “We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. (He is already on the way; he is like Mohammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god). That can be the historic future.” In The Second World War, Vol. I (The Gathering Storm), Winston Churchill wrote about Adolf Hitler’s autobiography Mein Kampf: “Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”

Medieval anti-Jewish pogroms in Europe could be brutal, but still normally of limited scope. To commit evil on a truly monumental scale, you need the support of ideology backed by bureaucrats, jurists and the machinery of a totalitarian state. Since Socialism generally leads in a totalitarian direction, which has also been facilitated by technological and industrial advances, a Socialist society will make large-scale massacres more likely..

The Hungarian author Imre Kertész, Holocaust survivor and winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, writes in the magazine signandsight.com that “the genuine novelties of the twentieth century were the totalitarian state and Auschwitz. The anti-Semitism of the nineteenth century, for instance, was as yet barely able, nor even would have wished, to imagine a Final Solution. Auschwitz, therefore, cannot be accounted for by the common-or-garden, archaic, not to say classical concepts of anti-Semitism. (…) Eichmann testified during his trial in Jerusalem that he was never an anti-Semite, and although those who were in the courtroom burst into laughter, it is not inconceivable that he was being truthful. In order to murder millions of Jews the totalitarian state had need, in the final analysis, not so much of anti-Semites as good organisers. We need to see clearly that no totalitarianism of party or state can exist without discrimination, and the totalitarian form of discrimination is necessarily mass murder.”

Kertész also warns, timely in these Multicultural days, that “a civilisation that does not clearly proclaim its values, or which leaves these proclaimed values high and dry, is stepping on the path to perdition and terminal debility. Then others will pronounce their values, and in the mouths of these others they will no longer be values but just so many pretexts for untrammelled power, untrammelled destruction.”

Following the Cold War, the West was stuck with a large fifth column in our media and academia of people who were disappointed after the sudden collapse of the alternative to capitalism. They are slaves emancipated against their will, desperately in search of a new master. Their hatred for the Established Order never subsided when Marxism suffered a blow to its credibility. On the contrary, on some levels it increased. Although their attacks on the Christian, capitalist West are less ideologically coherent than in the past, this does not make them any less passionate.

They have decided to pursue the course of a gradual transformation of society through the education system and through destroying the family structure. The radicals have renewed hope of a violent upheaval. With the mass importation of Muslims, who have displayed such a wonderful talent for violence, and with rising ethnic tensions within the West, maybe they can finally get the armed revolution they were longing for.

The Swedish Social Democrats were pro-Fascist and pro-Nazi during the 1930s and 40s, appeased the Communists during the Cold War and cooperate with repressive and violent Islamic organizations today. They have consistently supported or appeased some of the worst societies and ideologies in human history, which between themselves have killed more than 150 million people in a few generations. Yet they are the good guys, the poster boys of the political Left throughout the world.

Now they forge an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, another organization with close ideological ties to the Fascist and Nazi movements. At a time when native Swedes are raped, stabbed, killed and chased out of their homes by Muslim gangs, the Social Democrats agree to continue allowing Muslims to colonize the country in exchange for their votes. In the old days this would be called treason. Now it’s called tolerance. It’s remarkable how similar the two concepts have become. Two Fascist-inspired movements cooperate on exploiting and abusing the native population of a country, force them fund and applaud their own colonization and denounce them as bigots, racists and Fascists if they resist. The strategy is as brilliant as it is evil.

Why do they get away with this? How come Socialists can stab their own people in the back, ally themselves openly with some of the most violent and repressive movements on earth and still manage to portray themselves as beacons of goodness? I am tempted to agree with former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky: The West didn’t win the Cold War, at least not as decisively as we should have done. The belief-system we were up against has been allowed to mutate and regain some of its former strength. We haven’t defeated Socialism until we stage a Nuremberg trial and demonstrate clearly that the suffering, repression and massacres caused by Socialist regimes from Vietnam via the Ukraine to the Baltic were a direct result of Socialist doctrines.

I’ve seen many discussions on the question of ‘what’ concerning what’s going on.

I’ve seen many discussions on the ‘how.’ This article is a pretty good summarized timeline on that subject.

Precious few deal with the underlying ‘why.’ Sure you can puzzle out the whys from several of the articles dealing with the above. However, a straight down and dirty WHY. Why would they want to hurt, kill, and destroy everything that gave them the freedom, power, love, and fortune they presently have? It’s unfathomable, and yet, it’s happening. Why do they hate so? Why do they believe what they do so much?

I’m thinking we need to focus in a little more on that too. Know your enemy, and that includes a knowledge and even better, an understanding, of why.

I think this critical theory of the Frankfurt school, Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse had a profound influence in how the ‘sexual revolution’ that started from the universities in the 60’s gained general respectability do quickly. These ideas contribute to the destruction of traditional family structures.

After the end of the cold war, the suddenly ‘unemployed’ leftist intellectuals have had almost 20 time to develop the newest round of these ideologies: multiculturalism, environmentalism, welfare state and this has gone unnoticed to many, because economic growth and globalisation have conveyed a feeling of increasing liberty. But now it’s hopefully becoming clear to an increasing number of people that the enemies of civilisation are many and strong.

As for David’s question of why, you can read a nice story by Ayn Rand, called “For the New Intellectual”, or go straight to classical liberals as de Tocqueville. Some people don’t like freedom, because it compels them to compete. They rather have others toil for them.

The why is simple. Revolution. It requires the dismantling of what exists simply because it is what exists, and as a consequence would get in the way of the new order, reminding people of how things used to be.

That’s the excuse. The reality is, they’re still rebelling against mummy and daddy and so they attack any authority figure they perceive as limiting their ‘right’ to do as they please.

It is still hard for me to understand why Europeans vote in these socialists who tax them to death, pass laws regulating their every action and force this suicidal multiculturalism on them. Do they not care enough for their future generations? Do they figure the ‘bad part’ of the submission won’t happen until they are in their graves?

The ‘secret’ of moderated competition that has produced our prosperity, in Italian city states, the Netherlands, England, Germany and the United States is the rule of law, the principles of which have been stated by the Whig party in England in the 17th century and perfected in the 19th century. The restriction of womens’ ability to be a mistress of a powerful man is part of a phenomenon called morals.

Morals and the rule of law are not for organizations, they are rules that free persons can take into account in their lives.

Socialism is the hunterer-gatherer society resurrected, and its appeal is based mostly on inherited feelings of ‘social justice’, as in how the chief will distribute the meat to the tribe. This feeling has no place in a free market economy, because the rules of commerce do not ditribute. But the feeling is strong and there will always be some politicians or religion-founders to exploit it.

Basically what I’m saying is that Fjordman and whiskey_199 agree profoundly.

Darwin noted that the only societies that ever got above the ground were hierarchical in nature.

Also, Socialism is more than a socio-sexual phenomena, it is a rebellion against existence itself.

An aphorism by Celia Green:

“The starting point is that one is interested in the universe. One observes that one is finite and that this is intolerable. One has a limited time and apparently limited capacities with which to find anything out. Therefore it is possible to despair.”

then:

“Hatred of reality (originally caused by a traumatic experience or experiences of objective impotance) has become displaced on to other human beings. This state of affairs is expressed by attitudes of indifference to reality and pathological fixation with human society.”

That’s why they call it Socialism after all. Every thing must be referenced to, and measured by the “Society”.

Why do Socialists want this? Because it is easier to impress other people than it is to impress the universe. If everybody is working for each other and ‘living for today’, nobody has to work very hard or think very much.

Taking the advice of forss, I read a bit of Ayn Rand’s “For the New Intellectual.” I’ll read the rest in a bit. I’m a little surprised at the date in which it was written, that being 1963. What I read was blatently obvious in today’s world; I’m a little curious what she saw to cause her to draw the conclusions she did. Specifically the the entire section concerning the tribal chief and the witch doctor in relevance to the idea they represent force and faith. Used in the way she did, they simply represent doctrines that demand no thought, just blind obedience…or irresponsible consciousness as she quoted once. To be able to act as animals, or perhaps a little more accurate as computer programs, and not as people…how simple, how lazy, and how fearful.

Yet still, this is only one part of the ‘why’ I’ve been trying to puzzle out. Many have said this before; break it down to its lowest level and it’s basically those who wish to control and be controlled vs those who wish to live their lives in peace and as they deem fit to do so. Very much similar to what forss summarized at the end of his response to me.

Another idea tossed into the fray by Archonix was that it was the grown up extention of an infantile rebellion against their parents. I don’t disagree exactly, but I simply can’t wrap my mind around how that could translate into groups of people who then tear down the very society that gave them the freedom and wealth they enjoy now into a place where they would no longer be free, no longer have the material wealth, no longer be able to say the things they’re saying right now to rebel against the thing they hate. They’ll put themselves and everyone else in a box more restrictive and damning than ever their parents did. I’m also concerned on the shear amount of people this must affect. Having been in a loving home, and experienced that rebellion phase that all children MUST if they are to want to live their own lives, and now knowing that my parents really did what was best for me; I find myself quite grateful for it all. I recognize the necessity of what they did as parents, though I certainly didn’t always enjoy it at the time. They weren’t perfect, but who the hell is? I guess what I’m trying to say is, I figure there’s a lot more of my type of parents out there…more than enough that having a lot of children rebelling against ‘the man’ doesn’t quite make any sense to me. There cannot be that many inherently infantile people…I just don’t quite see how that could be possible. While likely a contributing factor, that cannot be the only explanation.

Then we move on to what whiskey 199 touched on so conveniently, heh. The ‘modern femenist.’ How they wish to tear down the modern family structure, by any means necessary, so they might be mistresses of powerful men, and thus take power the old fashioned way. This is something I’m just reading about now, so I’m a little curious as to how long people have been noticing this, and its validity. However, what I have personally seen are other femenists see the male of the species as something more vile and universally discordinant than the Great Old Ones of Lovecraft’s short stories. Sexism taken to an extreme beyond even which Islam doesn’t quite reach, which is kinda scary if you think about it. Being a male, the former bugs me, as we all know what happens when the bulk of females are concentrated around a select few males. The loss of hope this represents will and does manifest itself in a variety of rather violent way. However the latter just scares me. Leaving aside for the moment that they portray my feelings for a woman as something dirty and impure, they would actually advocate the complete and total extermination of male of the species. We all know where that would eventually lead, so I’ll stop there.

However, what’s really weird is that you’d probably not only find the two opposing femenist movements mentioned above working together, you find them working with the organizations working to bring down western civilzation, for reasons mentioned above and others not mentioned due to time constraints. They then find it extremely convenient to use the ideology of Islam as the battering ram, for this purpose. However, we all know what the adherents to the warlord and pedophile Mohammed will do to the people who wish to use them to obtain power for whatever reason, the women who seek to ‘end the threat of men,’ and to the women who seek to be mistresses of powerful men. The former two will be summarily executed, as Sauron…err…Islam doesn’t share power, and won’t suffer a woman to even THINK they have any bit of superiority to males let alone want to destroy all men. This leads into the last group mentioned…they’ll become the mistresses of powerful men alright, but they won’t be worth jack shit then; and all those trips to Bloomingdales? Yeah, there won’t BE stores like that anymore much less them being allowed to go.

That’s not even counting those who, as some have put it, have the Christian ‘guilt’ without Christian guiding principles, the socialists who believe in an all powerful state (which is actually just an extention of the tribal cheif handing out meat, as was said before), and all the various others who have allied themselves against everything that gives them the power to believe what they do and have what they have.

I just don’t see why or even, since I’m at this level, how it happened. Most of the people above should be mortal enemies; their idealogies are often catastrophically at odds with each other; more so than their hatred of Western Civilization…which doesn’t even make sense. Without Western Civilization, they could not even exist as they do, and should one of the groups attain power, all others will be fed into thermal depolymerizers…unless the greenies take over then we’ll be ground up into fertilizer.

The threads that connect to each other, I for one, cannot compute why they would connect, why they came into being, and why they want what they do. Short of some sort of global mass insanity (which understates matters), I personally can’t see an overall why or even a logical connection of why’s…and the how’s quite literally astound me. It’s the kind of thing you read about in Sci Fi stories with dark overlords who orchestrate societal unrest in order to take over. Problem is, in those stories, all tools used tend to have a certain logic behind them, whereas there is no logic here…yet they flow together so seemlessly anyway one can’t help but wonder if someone had a hand in it.

I’m watching it happen on my world on a daily basis; it’s really going on in just the way I said. Problem is, I’m just a normal guy, and even with what passes for my understanding of history and the nature of man I can’t fathom why…and to be honest, the shear scope of how leaves me in awestruck horror.

Just one guy’s two cents. The key to answering the question of why these seemingly irreconcilable ideologies of far left socialism and Islamism cooperate is all about POWER. I believe I first read this thought from Thomas Sowell.

The far left, most environmentalists, “for the children” folks, “multiculturists”, Islamists, etc, their goal is simply Power. What they spout to try and rationalize the power grab is really immaterial. They just want control over your life. The power of life and death.

The question I always ask myself (and I am teaching my children to ask) is “what is being proposed, does it increase or decrease the cause of freedom?”

The Socialists and the Islamists cooperate cause they both have the same goal. Once that goal of absolute Power is achieved, then there would probably be a bloody fallout as to which group remained in control.

I think desire for power is only evident in a small percentage of leftists. The vast majority probably motivated by other mechanisms. Eric Hoffer’s taxonomy in The True Believer demonstrated the variety that exists in any mass movement quite succinctly.

I think there is another argument to be made that leftists have replaced religious morality with a secular, social morality.

Just as traditional, religious people demonstrate their morality by trying to follow the precepts of their faith in attending services, giving to charity, and discriminating between good and bad, the leftist exercises his morality by denigrating Western tradition, building an all encompassing State, and avoiding discrimination of good and bad to the point of inverting them.

This would explain a lot of the self-righteousness and defensiveness we see in their words and deeds. As Dennis Prager often says, the Right believe the Left is wrong, the Left thinks the Right is bad. Not misguided, mistaken, or not careless, but bad, evil, and corrupt. Those are moral judgments not purely political calculations.